![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi DVdm, Apologies for the dreaded notification - Unfortunately socks have been adding the content to various articles for years so at this point they're mostly reverted without edit summaries however as I reverted to a revision I should've provided some sort of reason so I wanted to apologise for not doing so, Thanks for your tidying up and contributions on the project :), Happy editing, – Davey2010 Talk 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it's wrong to vandallize the vandallism counter(even as a jest, without malice), but consider, that vandallizing the vandallism counter is still technically vandallizm & so still increments the aforemention'd counter. That's part of the joke & why it seems silly to revert incrementing the vandallism counter when the incrementing is not truly a mistake & is technically vandallizm(see the polocy), even done in jest & without any malace. JustinCB ( talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your reasoning for removing the Wolfram Programming Lab from the list of programming languages for children is incorrect. The programming lab is actually designed for children and folks with no prior experience. Further, it is a free program to use and is in use within grade-schools across the country. My eight year-old daughter uses it twice per week in her elective science class.
Then, the same goes for the Wolfram Language with regard to use within universities. This language is used in hundreds of university classes throughout the world. Your claim of it being a commercial language is unsubstantiated and false. I realize that you watch several users and pages, but please do not pull down content that is actually valid. Thank you! Badtoothfairy ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
07:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi dvdm can you please not removed I add edit Sigmar Gabriel I already did it and then you deleted it would you please not removed I add, thank you AdmiralNelson ( talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi DVdm can you please stop removed edit, this not English unfortunately, I sorry I edit on Germany by mistake, can you please stop removed edit thank you AdmiralNelson ( talk) 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have requested that the first citation for "scientific consensus" be reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines. 24.166.216.40 ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi dvdm
I wonder how I could go to Wikipedia language can you tell me how? AdmiralNelson ( talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Or something, whatever it's called - you realize the body of the article says, with sources, that that's roughly the monetary amount of the reward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
Hello,
I cannot understand why ESDIP link cannot be included in the digital pathology information. ESDIP is the European SOciety of Digital and Integrative Pathology: https://digitalpathologysociety.org/ Thanks 161.67.25.54 ( talk) 19:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Reliable source for what? 10 complement? If Wikipedia has a page with that title, that gives all it in details, why would I need to give any other source. The part was just diverting attention to that well-known but not mentioned case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.4.122 ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In my Mr. Armento page you quite rudely deleted, I actually ddid list why he was notable, I said he was the best math teacher in the world, which is quite notable Sand undertale ( talk) 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) sand undertale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sand undertale ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the Pair Production diagram because the old one is wrong. It might look better but it gives the wrong impression. Electron positron pair production does not occur when a photon hits a nucleus but in the electric field around a nucleus (or an atomic electron). Also the production opening angle is approximately zero not as shown in the old figure. I wrote all this in the Talk page of the Electron article. So I am reverting to the new figure. Chriskb19 ( talk) 15:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I can see you deleted a bibliography I have added in an article on Matter. It seems you don't like it because it is in French. And you give me a link in Wikipedia (Further reading) to learn. I am new in Wikipedia as contributor. After many years of being a passive reader, I decided that is time to help other readers. I have a PhD in Physics, and Professor at the University. I have written many journal articles and chapter books, so I know how important is to have good sources. At the same time, nowadays, you have to get information from other languages if you want to learn. Myself I can read/write/understand English, French, and Spanish. I use in my articles and books always references in many languages. So, I don't understand your criticism. At the same time, I went to the link you indicated me (and other sub-links there), and nothing says about sources in different languages. As I said, I am new in Wikipedia, and I need to learn how to improve Wikipedia. I will invest my time in learning, and in improving the wonderful idea of Wikipedia. I will appreciate your advise in this matter. But, also, I will appreciate in this punctual case that you can justify that the reference I have included is not useful. I read it, and it is perfect for general reference. I might try in the future to improve also the article on Matter. In the meantime, I am trying to make small and easy contributions, and references (I believe) are the easiest ones to make. Specially in those articles where the references are scarce. Please, revert the changes and include again the reference. Thank you. Triboscience ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw you removed my history of Cartamundi. I work there and got all the information from them. I didn't use an external source that I can add to the article. Can I post without a source?
Thanks! Lotvanzwol ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Richard Feynman has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia."
Thank you for contributions to quality articles related to physics and its people, such as Richard Feynman, restoring the quality of one of Wikpedias oldest articles in collaboration, for welcoming and warning countless new users, for formatting with constructive edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I am constructing an example where, by definition, the spaceships have the same maximum cruising a velocity and the same rate of acceleration, the only difference is the amount of time spent at that velocity. But I agree it is 100% beside the point. Initially I said:
'The risk is that the reader goes "oh, acceleration" and continues to not have even a basic grasp of length contraction'. To which you replied:
'So I think the article is fairly complete and balanced, and that balance is well reflected in the lead, and i.m.o. we don't need to worry about readers going "oh, acceleration"'
Then along comes a user who states: 'However, in the space twin's perspective, the acceleration phase explains everything (see Relativity of simultaneity), even if you imagine infinite acceleration. '
Which is pretty much "oh, acceleration". I don't know what to tell you, the article is continuing to perpetuate confused thinking.
Again, here is my proposed restructuring of the resolution section. First have a section on length contraction, as described by Wheeler and Taylor. Then, a section of planes of simultaneity to talk about it from a clock perspective. Then, a section on "acceleration" that can link the sources that use it in the resolution, but note that it isn't crucial to understanding the Twin Paradox at all. Bkennedy99 ( talk) 14:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
![]() |
For beta testing
these changes to the English Wikipedia's Huggle configuration.
This would not have been possible without your help, and you have earned a permanent mention in the version history of this central configuration file.
|
I corrected a lot of mistakes and wrong information on that page it was all restored why ? I can provide with links for all the corrections made .mostly YouTube . Can you please revert back my changes . Was editing painstakingly for a long while only to see everything back to all the wrong information . Even her name is spelled wrong . Promanager101 ( talk) 22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
Thanks for your message. I uploaded the article in researchgate for more than 8 months. So far no one has refuted the outcome of the article, thus I thought it is acceptable to include it in Wikipedia. If you think my result is not correct then I am more than happy to accept its removal. But if it is right there is no justification for deleting it. Ziaedin shafiei ( talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
207.166.224.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Just came off of a six month block, went right back to vandalizing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the unsourced edit. Revised and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.229 ( talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hey, sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, it's been a while since i've been on wikipedia and I've forgotten most things :) Had a question re: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oleg_D._Jefimenko&oldid=prev&diff=842342751 - I'm not sure I understand why this needs a "solid second source" - this page is about Jefimenko and this is straight out of his book, why is a second source necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your contribution but I would like to point out to you that you post incorrect information about the Kuki people.
Firstly , you are confuse about the term Kuki. You should know that Kuki and Chin are two different term and two different people though they are related by blood. You are also confuse about 'Mizos' and 'Zomis". These two terms were never use by any tribe in our history. These are new invented terms and have no connection with the Kuki Tribe(but with clans). Secondly, when it comes to religion, Christianity is followed by 99% of the Kuki Tribes. Out of the remaining 1% half of them are Pagans- followers of their forefathers religion, Atheist , Agnostic and Judaism. Less than or about 0.5% of them believe that they are one of the lost tribe of Israel even though there is no proof. The fact that they claim to be the lost tribe of Israel defies logic and common sense. You are deliberately promoting this falsehood about 0.5% of the people and not the side of 99.5 %. Why promote internal division among us? I can only conclude that you are not a Kuki and clearly you have no idea of what you are posting here about my people-the Kuki People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulmilk ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the message you left on my talk page — that's okay :) JackintheBox ( talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, you made a mistake on the "Riffian people" page, I did provide a source Tribes of the Rif Coon, Carleton S. (Carleton Stevens), 1904-1981, so please would you mind stopping editing the page? Thank you. Ronaldoremi1 ( talk) 06:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ronaldoremi1.
Okay, so what do you suggest then? Wizymon ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey you undid my edit because it was "unconstructive". That's fucking dumb. That's what the source says, it should stay in. I wasn't vandalizing anything, I was editing the article to be more accurate. 73.225.69.24 ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Now blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0::/64 for another month. Sigh. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This was an utterly stupid edit. Apparently you've developed some kind of grudge against me, based on my improvements to an article which you decided for no apparent reason that you objected to. Get over it. Reedsrecap ( talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't write in the article that square roots are not unary operations. Check out Category:Square roots and the categories it is in. See: WP:Category structure. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I updated the "Intuitive explanation" section of the Coriolis Force page. The prior version provided a very opaque description that lacked much useful information and is not algined with the deeper physics/equations provided in the rest of the page.
My new version seeks to provide a clear text explanation of these underlying physics in as simple of terms as possible. You noted that I did not provide sources for this information. Here is a viable reference: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/faculty/Cook/Coriolis_force.doc . Does this work?
Thanks, Dan Drchavas ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha, I'll take a look, thanks. Dan Drchavas ( talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was going to make a replacement. An article by Harry Lass has been discovered which essentially changes the idea of the paradox.I tried to outline the solution of the problem, following this article.
HarryZakharov I do not mind if someone is more experienced and knows English. I'm not young and it's hard for me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryZakharov ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
Your request regarding Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein, in my talk page, seems as a dictatorship-style of mouth shutting.
I am very amazed by the fact that some Wikipedia editors look for excuses how to avoid writing some simple basic well-known historic facts.
If this won't be corrected, I am planning to initiate a wide protest of removing the prefixes "Christian", "American", "British" from every wbepage in the internet - as many as possible.
טחינה ( talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
It is obvious to anyone with a physics background that the "intuitive text" paragraph that I removed is incorrect. You cannot use angular momentum conservation to provide an "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis since angular momentum is not conserved in a non-inertial referecne frame. See the mathematical details that are presented in the later part of the Wikipage. That mathematical derivation contraditcs the intuitive explanation you keep trying to re-instate and that I keep trying to correct.
The number one viewed video on the internet explaining Coriolis is by PBS NOVA. That video has the same intuitive explanation that has been used in the past on the Wikipage for Coriolis. If you now goto to the NOVA web apge you will see they have remioved the video because I have pointed out that it is wrong.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/coriolis-effect.html
So, how do you want to proceed here with Wikipedica coriolis? The old "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis on Wikipage is dead wrong. It seems you do personally not understand the physics here and are serving as a block to having this corrected. The NOVA explanation will be corrected going forward and a new video produced, and I will see that likewise the Wikipedia page is corrected. Blatant false scientific information being on Wikipedia out of pure ingonrance by an editor is not an acceptable way forward for me. This page will be conrrected.
Davidmholland ( talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)davidmholland
I look forward to hearing from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofdominion ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. After creating an account here, the Wikipedia asked me to edit a random article and I edit just what I noticed. The similar edits were on the next article. Sorry, if it was some kind of rules violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard Willkins ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you DVdm for your informing me of my error in misplacing my introduction on User:Michael Z Freeman page rather than on on his Talk page. Sincerely Miistermagico ( talk) 05:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
it appears you have a mental block in accepting any discovery / invention that was made in the east before the Europeans. Perhaps a racial prejudice ? Have an open mind mate. Don't forget that when Europeans were living in caves, the Asians were living in well architected buildings with underground drainage system. It is the fact that Indians had documented how to predict eclipses 1000 yrs ago and how that is possible without knowing about gravity ? Have some common sense before you reject my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm, I believe you have made a mistake in reverting my edit in Parody Religion. I'll post a message explaining my arguments in Parody Religion's talk page, and you can explain to me why you do not share this view. An agreement can almost certainly be reached. Thanks a lot, RomBRNS - — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomBRNS ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll Stop talking 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 22:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted my changes to Newton's law of universal gravitation where I cross referenced to another wiki page . You have said that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"
If one wiki page can not refer to another wiki page, then most of wiki pages have to be deleted.'
If the content of the wiki page that I referred to is un reliable, how that page exists ?
It appears you have decided that I should not make any changes and you want to stick to it with lame excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I just wonder why my edit was reverted, my school litterature and even Wikipedia itself clearly states that the rest mass is the correct answer. I would however appreciate if you could tell me how that equation is derived because I have searched Wikipedia for a answer but never found one so to make it clear, I do not understand these things but just wanted it to be correct with both what my school litterature says and actually, what wikipedia itself says:
Look here: /info/en/?search=Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
Best regards, Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoppson ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit on Dragon Ball Super?
Wizymon ( talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You have asked for source to correct spelling mistakes. This is bizzare. I can understand asking for sources for factual/ material changes, but for spelling correction ? Threatening about blocking my account is high handed. Authority comes with lot of responsibility.
BTW, if you want proof whether kaka is indeed the correct sanskrit word for crow, visit https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kaka or http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=crow,&direct=es&script=&link=yes&mode=3
But expecting me to insert a ref link even for such a trivial spell correction is taking it too far and will clutter the page.
Hope this explains. I look forward to re-instating my changes
Sunayanaa ( talk) 03:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for undo. I wanted to revert IP's edit. -- Binod ( talk) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, I work for the publishing company that previously controlled the rights to this song. It is no longer copyright controlled in the U.S but may still be controlled in other countries with different copyright laws. Please reinstate my edit. 12.68.233.254 ( talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this, but even more surprised to see the rationale you quoted: "If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside..." The sentence fragment "never used LSD, never used cocaine, never used heroin or any of that other stuff" is not a "full sentence"—it couldn't stand alone—so the period cannot punctuate it. The period logically punctuates the enclosing sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, Thank you very much for writing the talk to me I’m writing this talk because I’d like you to understand what I want to do. I wanted to be able to go to items quickly without pushing each content. On the Wikipedia Ignor Prize page in Japanese there is the same thing as I did. I thought that this sentence can be used more conveniently by users. Since it may not be transmitted unless it is in Japanese, I write it in Japanese below I am sorry for my selfish writing.
(Japanese) 初めてお目にかかりますDVmd様。私は『舌先現象になります』と申します。お忙しいなか私にtalkをお書きになさり誠に有難うございます。私がDVmd様にtalkを致す理由は自分の考えを御理解していただきたかった次第であります。私が執筆はコンテンツを毎度押さなくとも直ちにその年の項目にいくことが出来るようにしたかったのです。日本語版ウイキペディアでは私が英語版でした執筆行為と類似しております。私はこの方が利用者にとってより良く利用できると思っておりました。 不甲斐ない英語で申し訳ありません
Regards, 舌先現象になります 舌先現象になります ( talk) 14:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, and I hope you will not block me. Aetzbarr ( talk) 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel more and more like an old (82) actor replaying endlessly the same final scene ! But when I detect an scientific anomaly I feel morally obliged to undertake an action.
So I returned to your refutation of Dingle. Dingle’s argument was obviously false. But not for the reason you exhibited ! You committed the same error !
You and Dingle mistook the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. I May 2017 I should have noticed that your false calculation induced you to write:
(3) rate A / rate B = 1/a ?
(4) rate B / rate A = 1/a ?
If that were true , that means that the rate of each clock would depend of it’s usage !
In “reductio ad absurdum “ that is an indirect demonstration of :
rate A = rate B
« Il ne saurait pas en être autrement «
Don’t mention the rates and your refutation will be valid !
Cordialement Chessfan ( talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please excuse me for "hot comments". Please note, that I believe, that editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) conducts subjective editing, which is not in accordance with WP:NPOW and is not solidly backed by reputable sources. I believe that you are not the supreme power here, so, could you please to let me know, how to bring this issue to the discussion? Can I appeal to a higher authority to resolve the issue? Best personal regards, Albert Gartinger ( talk) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:BOLDAVOID before reverting my edits. It states two things of note to us: the lead sentence shouldn’t be made unnatural by the bold and links shouldn’t be put in bold. IWI ( chat) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 205.239.98.30 ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 207.37.196.254 ( talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the article on Thermal conductivity says that the phase velocity of longitudinal waves is much greater than for transverse waves, such that their group speed is also larger. I thought that must be a typo, as the phase velocity doesn't determine the group speed in general. Thinking about it, I guess since both dispersions are gapless and heat is carried mostly by long wavelength phonons, this is true, but perhaps still not obvious. Apologies for the stray incorrect "correction" :) 130.183.93.92 ( talk) 09:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ DVdm:. The lead sentence of Galileo is currently/recently under discussion on talk:Galileo. Please join in on the discussion. Best, James343e ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I recently made an edit to the Lorentz transform page. I'm not sure what you expected me to provide a source for, because my change was pretty much just some algebra to make things clearer. I was going back to change the plus signs back to minus signs when I saw that you reverted the whole thing, because the plus sign is for when you're moving the future world line to the positive direction, which is just a sign convention that is used only in some contexts, and so it wasn't appropriate. The rest is just algebra to make everything clearer, and it's directly related to: /info/en/?search=Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction. When you draw a Minkowski diagram, you have an x and a ct axis, and the reason is so that the eigenvectors (which are the light-like vectors) are (1,1) and (1,-1), in other words, the line of light like event separations is at a 45 degree angle. For this reason (and so that the components have the same units), four vectors are typically written as (ct, x, y, z) for position, (E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z) or (E, cp_x, cp_y, cp_z) for four momentum, or A = (phi/c, a_x, a_y, a_z) for the electromagnetic four potential and so on, which are discussed to some extent on /info/en/?search=Four-vector. A source that supports what I'm saying is: http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_16.pdf
I am a physics doctoral student, and so I don't remember all of the places I saw this clearer way to write it, but what I do know is that the first time I learned special relativity, the professor used the notation that is currently on the Lorentz transformation page, and people constantly made mistakes with it or couldn't keep the two straight etc, whereas writing it the way I did makes it very easy to remember, and it matches /info/en/?search=Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction except there sinh and cosh are used, and explaining how to get to that is something I could do. My aim with making this edit was to save many students the trouble that I had and that I have seen many fellow students have, and now that I am TAing, my students are having this same very difficulty. For the nice way, you only need to remember a very simple matrix,
Obviously, most people won't actually know about matrices, so that's why I didn't write it like this, but the point is how simple and symmetric it is. Given this, is my edit not sensible? Mr. HelloBye ( talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm seriously thinking of downgrading Special relativity from B-class to C-class. I just finished giving it a thorough reading, and it strikes me as a junk pile of separate essays with no clear focus and which are not ordered in any rational fashion. A certain amount smells like original research. Not necessarily wrong, but either unsourced or idiosyncratically sourced. (Really now, a reference to the entire book The Road to Reality without a page number just does not qualify as a legitimate source. Likewise, a reference without page numbers to an old Dover reprint with a dated approach to the subject is just a pretend reference.)
Problem is, if I downgrade the article, I'd feel obligated to rewrite the article. Unlike Relativistic Doppler effect, which took only 10 days to get into a basically decent shape (although I keep finding small things that need tweaking), Special relativity would be a several months-long project, and I'm just not up to it.
Thoughts? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 09:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I used Graham Woan's "The Cambridge Handbook of Physics Formulas" (Cambridge University Press, y2000) for almost all of my data and calculations. John Dewey's "How We Think" is a very old book, though the author was the designer of the Dewey Decimal System used in libraries all over the world. I have several books by Albert Einstein; two are The Principle of Relativity" and "The Meaning of Relativity". Also, Max Planck's "A Survey of Physical theory"is invaluable in understanding light waves.
Other references can be provided if necessary. (I was raised in Richland, near Hanford where material for the atomic bomb was manufactured, have visited Nagasaki, and took a BA in Physics at Reed in Portland.) I hope it is possible to re-establish my talk page. SyntheticET ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello DVdm,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a typo in the Jack Handy quote you have displayed on your header, thought I'd let you know. Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 21:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page stating that i changed a page on Woolly Mammoth. I have NOT changes it. I believe my account may have been hacked, or logged into by someone else. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am149072 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi...I wanted to apologize if any inconvenience was given to you on my part.I guess I didn't gave a detailed explanation of why I edited some parts of salah article which made it looked like I wasn't being constructive.Next time I will be careful to provide detailed explainations with references as well+hyperthreaded links to support.I invite you to read those editions I do next time in detail and ask me questions if you have any confusions.I will be happy to answer.( Davidroth101 ( talk) 15:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
Since you contested move, but Superseded scientific theories was originally a redirect, so I just change this redirect to Superseded scientific theory in order to fix double redirect, cheers. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi DVdm, Apologies for the dreaded notification - Unfortunately socks have been adding the content to various articles for years so at this point they're mostly reverted without edit summaries however as I reverted to a revision I should've provided some sort of reason so I wanted to apologise for not doing so, Thanks for your tidying up and contributions on the project :), Happy editing, – Davey2010 Talk 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it's wrong to vandallize the vandallism counter(even as a jest, without malice), but consider, that vandallizing the vandallism counter is still technically vandallizm & so still increments the aforemention'd counter. That's part of the joke & why it seems silly to revert incrementing the vandallism counter when the incrementing is not truly a mistake & is technically vandallizm(see the polocy), even done in jest & without any malace. JustinCB ( talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your reasoning for removing the Wolfram Programming Lab from the list of programming languages for children is incorrect. The programming lab is actually designed for children and folks with no prior experience. Further, it is a free program to use and is in use within grade-schools across the country. My eight year-old daughter uses it twice per week in her elective science class.
Then, the same goes for the Wolfram Language with regard to use within universities. This language is used in hundreds of university classes throughout the world. Your claim of it being a commercial language is unsubstantiated and false. I realize that you watch several users and pages, but please do not pull down content that is actually valid. Thank you! Badtoothfairy ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
07:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi dvdm can you please not removed I add edit Sigmar Gabriel I already did it and then you deleted it would you please not removed I add, thank you AdmiralNelson ( talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi DVdm can you please stop removed edit, this not English unfortunately, I sorry I edit on Germany by mistake, can you please stop removed edit thank you AdmiralNelson ( talk) 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have requested that the first citation for "scientific consensus" be reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines. 24.166.216.40 ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi dvdm
I wonder how I could go to Wikipedia language can you tell me how? AdmiralNelson ( talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Or something, whatever it's called - you realize the body of the article says, with sources, that that's roughly the monetary amount of the reward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
Hello,
I cannot understand why ESDIP link cannot be included in the digital pathology information. ESDIP is the European SOciety of Digital and Integrative Pathology: https://digitalpathologysociety.org/ Thanks 161.67.25.54 ( talk) 19:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Reliable source for what? 10 complement? If Wikipedia has a page with that title, that gives all it in details, why would I need to give any other source. The part was just diverting attention to that well-known but not mentioned case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.4.122 ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In my Mr. Armento page you quite rudely deleted, I actually ddid list why he was notable, I said he was the best math teacher in the world, which is quite notable Sand undertale ( talk) 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) sand undertale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sand undertale ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the Pair Production diagram because the old one is wrong. It might look better but it gives the wrong impression. Electron positron pair production does not occur when a photon hits a nucleus but in the electric field around a nucleus (or an atomic electron). Also the production opening angle is approximately zero not as shown in the old figure. I wrote all this in the Talk page of the Electron article. So I am reverting to the new figure. Chriskb19 ( talk) 15:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I can see you deleted a bibliography I have added in an article on Matter. It seems you don't like it because it is in French. And you give me a link in Wikipedia (Further reading) to learn. I am new in Wikipedia as contributor. After many years of being a passive reader, I decided that is time to help other readers. I have a PhD in Physics, and Professor at the University. I have written many journal articles and chapter books, so I know how important is to have good sources. At the same time, nowadays, you have to get information from other languages if you want to learn. Myself I can read/write/understand English, French, and Spanish. I use in my articles and books always references in many languages. So, I don't understand your criticism. At the same time, I went to the link you indicated me (and other sub-links there), and nothing says about sources in different languages. As I said, I am new in Wikipedia, and I need to learn how to improve Wikipedia. I will invest my time in learning, and in improving the wonderful idea of Wikipedia. I will appreciate your advise in this matter. But, also, I will appreciate in this punctual case that you can justify that the reference I have included is not useful. I read it, and it is perfect for general reference. I might try in the future to improve also the article on Matter. In the meantime, I am trying to make small and easy contributions, and references (I believe) are the easiest ones to make. Specially in those articles where the references are scarce. Please, revert the changes and include again the reference. Thank you. Triboscience ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw you removed my history of Cartamundi. I work there and got all the information from them. I didn't use an external source that I can add to the article. Can I post without a source?
Thanks! Lotvanzwol ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Richard Feynman has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia."
Thank you for contributions to quality articles related to physics and its people, such as Richard Feynman, restoring the quality of one of Wikpedias oldest articles in collaboration, for welcoming and warning countless new users, for formatting with constructive edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I am constructing an example where, by definition, the spaceships have the same maximum cruising a velocity and the same rate of acceleration, the only difference is the amount of time spent at that velocity. But I agree it is 100% beside the point. Initially I said:
'The risk is that the reader goes "oh, acceleration" and continues to not have even a basic grasp of length contraction'. To which you replied:
'So I think the article is fairly complete and balanced, and that balance is well reflected in the lead, and i.m.o. we don't need to worry about readers going "oh, acceleration"'
Then along comes a user who states: 'However, in the space twin's perspective, the acceleration phase explains everything (see Relativity of simultaneity), even if you imagine infinite acceleration. '
Which is pretty much "oh, acceleration". I don't know what to tell you, the article is continuing to perpetuate confused thinking.
Again, here is my proposed restructuring of the resolution section. First have a section on length contraction, as described by Wheeler and Taylor. Then, a section of planes of simultaneity to talk about it from a clock perspective. Then, a section on "acceleration" that can link the sources that use it in the resolution, but note that it isn't crucial to understanding the Twin Paradox at all. Bkennedy99 ( talk) 14:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
![]() |
For beta testing
these changes to the English Wikipedia's Huggle configuration.
This would not have been possible without your help, and you have earned a permanent mention in the version history of this central configuration file.
|
I corrected a lot of mistakes and wrong information on that page it was all restored why ? I can provide with links for all the corrections made .mostly YouTube . Can you please revert back my changes . Was editing painstakingly for a long while only to see everything back to all the wrong information . Even her name is spelled wrong . Promanager101 ( talk) 22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
Thanks for your message. I uploaded the article in researchgate for more than 8 months. So far no one has refuted the outcome of the article, thus I thought it is acceptable to include it in Wikipedia. If you think my result is not correct then I am more than happy to accept its removal. But if it is right there is no justification for deleting it. Ziaedin shafiei ( talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
207.166.224.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Just came off of a six month block, went right back to vandalizing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the unsourced edit. Revised and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.229 ( talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hey, sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, it's been a while since i've been on wikipedia and I've forgotten most things :) Had a question re: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oleg_D._Jefimenko&oldid=prev&diff=842342751 - I'm not sure I understand why this needs a "solid second source" - this page is about Jefimenko and this is straight out of his book, why is a second source necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your contribution but I would like to point out to you that you post incorrect information about the Kuki people.
Firstly , you are confuse about the term Kuki. You should know that Kuki and Chin are two different term and two different people though they are related by blood. You are also confuse about 'Mizos' and 'Zomis". These two terms were never use by any tribe in our history. These are new invented terms and have no connection with the Kuki Tribe(but with clans). Secondly, when it comes to religion, Christianity is followed by 99% of the Kuki Tribes. Out of the remaining 1% half of them are Pagans- followers of their forefathers religion, Atheist , Agnostic and Judaism. Less than or about 0.5% of them believe that they are one of the lost tribe of Israel even though there is no proof. The fact that they claim to be the lost tribe of Israel defies logic and common sense. You are deliberately promoting this falsehood about 0.5% of the people and not the side of 99.5 %. Why promote internal division among us? I can only conclude that you are not a Kuki and clearly you have no idea of what you are posting here about my people-the Kuki People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulmilk ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the message you left on my talk page — that's okay :) JackintheBox ( talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, you made a mistake on the "Riffian people" page, I did provide a source Tribes of the Rif Coon, Carleton S. (Carleton Stevens), 1904-1981, so please would you mind stopping editing the page? Thank you. Ronaldoremi1 ( talk) 06:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ronaldoremi1.
Okay, so what do you suggest then? Wizymon ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey you undid my edit because it was "unconstructive". That's fucking dumb. That's what the source says, it should stay in. I wasn't vandalizing anything, I was editing the article to be more accurate. 73.225.69.24 ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Now blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0::/64 for another month. Sigh. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This was an utterly stupid edit. Apparently you've developed some kind of grudge against me, based on my improvements to an article which you decided for no apparent reason that you objected to. Get over it. Reedsrecap ( talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't write in the article that square roots are not unary operations. Check out Category:Square roots and the categories it is in. See: WP:Category structure. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I updated the "Intuitive explanation" section of the Coriolis Force page. The prior version provided a very opaque description that lacked much useful information and is not algined with the deeper physics/equations provided in the rest of the page.
My new version seeks to provide a clear text explanation of these underlying physics in as simple of terms as possible. You noted that I did not provide sources for this information. Here is a viable reference: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/faculty/Cook/Coriolis_force.doc . Does this work?
Thanks, Dan Drchavas ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha, I'll take a look, thanks. Dan Drchavas ( talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was going to make a replacement. An article by Harry Lass has been discovered which essentially changes the idea of the paradox.I tried to outline the solution of the problem, following this article.
HarryZakharov I do not mind if someone is more experienced and knows English. I'm not young and it's hard for me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryZakharov ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
Your request regarding Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein, in my talk page, seems as a dictatorship-style of mouth shutting.
I am very amazed by the fact that some Wikipedia editors look for excuses how to avoid writing some simple basic well-known historic facts.
If this won't be corrected, I am planning to initiate a wide protest of removing the prefixes "Christian", "American", "British" from every wbepage in the internet - as many as possible.
טחינה ( talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
It is obvious to anyone with a physics background that the "intuitive text" paragraph that I removed is incorrect. You cannot use angular momentum conservation to provide an "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis since angular momentum is not conserved in a non-inertial referecne frame. See the mathematical details that are presented in the later part of the Wikipage. That mathematical derivation contraditcs the intuitive explanation you keep trying to re-instate and that I keep trying to correct.
The number one viewed video on the internet explaining Coriolis is by PBS NOVA. That video has the same intuitive explanation that has been used in the past on the Wikipage for Coriolis. If you now goto to the NOVA web apge you will see they have remioved the video because I have pointed out that it is wrong.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/coriolis-effect.html
So, how do you want to proceed here with Wikipedica coriolis? The old "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis on Wikipage is dead wrong. It seems you do personally not understand the physics here and are serving as a block to having this corrected. The NOVA explanation will be corrected going forward and a new video produced, and I will see that likewise the Wikipedia page is corrected. Blatant false scientific information being on Wikipedia out of pure ingonrance by an editor is not an acceptable way forward for me. This page will be conrrected.
Davidmholland ( talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)davidmholland
I look forward to hearing from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofdominion ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. After creating an account here, the Wikipedia asked me to edit a random article and I edit just what I noticed. The similar edits were on the next article. Sorry, if it was some kind of rules violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard Willkins ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you DVdm for your informing me of my error in misplacing my introduction on User:Michael Z Freeman page rather than on on his Talk page. Sincerely Miistermagico ( talk) 05:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
it appears you have a mental block in accepting any discovery / invention that was made in the east before the Europeans. Perhaps a racial prejudice ? Have an open mind mate. Don't forget that when Europeans were living in caves, the Asians were living in well architected buildings with underground drainage system. It is the fact that Indians had documented how to predict eclipses 1000 yrs ago and how that is possible without knowing about gravity ? Have some common sense before you reject my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear DVdm, I believe you have made a mistake in reverting my edit in Parody Religion. I'll post a message explaining my arguments in Parody Religion's talk page, and you can explain to me why you do not share this view. An agreement can almost certainly be reached. Thanks a lot, RomBRNS - — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomBRNS ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll Stop talking 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 22:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted my changes to Newton's law of universal gravitation where I cross referenced to another wiki page . You have said that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"
If one wiki page can not refer to another wiki page, then most of wiki pages have to be deleted.'
If the content of the wiki page that I referred to is un reliable, how that page exists ?
It appears you have decided that I should not make any changes and you want to stick to it with lame excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I just wonder why my edit was reverted, my school litterature and even Wikipedia itself clearly states that the rest mass is the correct answer. I would however appreciate if you could tell me how that equation is derived because I have searched Wikipedia for a answer but never found one so to make it clear, I do not understand these things but just wanted it to be correct with both what my school litterature says and actually, what wikipedia itself says:
Look here: /info/en/?search=Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
Best regards, Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoppson ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit on Dragon Ball Super?
Wizymon ( talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You have asked for source to correct spelling mistakes. This is bizzare. I can understand asking for sources for factual/ material changes, but for spelling correction ? Threatening about blocking my account is high handed. Authority comes with lot of responsibility.
BTW, if you want proof whether kaka is indeed the correct sanskrit word for crow, visit https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kaka or http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=crow,&direct=es&script=&link=yes&mode=3
But expecting me to insert a ref link even for such a trivial spell correction is taking it too far and will clutter the page.
Hope this explains. I look forward to re-instating my changes
Sunayanaa ( talk) 03:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for undo. I wanted to revert IP's edit. -- Binod ( talk) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, I work for the publishing company that previously controlled the rights to this song. It is no longer copyright controlled in the U.S but may still be controlled in other countries with different copyright laws. Please reinstate my edit. 12.68.233.254 ( talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this, but even more surprised to see the rationale you quoted: "If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside..." The sentence fragment "never used LSD, never used cocaine, never used heroin or any of that other stuff" is not a "full sentence"—it couldn't stand alone—so the period cannot punctuate it. The period logically punctuates the enclosing sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, Thank you very much for writing the talk to me I’m writing this talk because I’d like you to understand what I want to do. I wanted to be able to go to items quickly without pushing each content. On the Wikipedia Ignor Prize page in Japanese there is the same thing as I did. I thought that this sentence can be used more conveniently by users. Since it may not be transmitted unless it is in Japanese, I write it in Japanese below I am sorry for my selfish writing.
(Japanese) 初めてお目にかかりますDVmd様。私は『舌先現象になります』と申します。お忙しいなか私にtalkをお書きになさり誠に有難うございます。私がDVmd様にtalkを致す理由は自分の考えを御理解していただきたかった次第であります。私が執筆はコンテンツを毎度押さなくとも直ちにその年の項目にいくことが出来るようにしたかったのです。日本語版ウイキペディアでは私が英語版でした執筆行為と類似しております。私はこの方が利用者にとってより良く利用できると思っておりました。 不甲斐ない英語で申し訳ありません
Regards, 舌先現象になります 舌先現象になります ( talk) 14:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, and I hope you will not block me. Aetzbarr ( talk) 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel more and more like an old (82) actor replaying endlessly the same final scene ! But when I detect an scientific anomaly I feel morally obliged to undertake an action.
So I returned to your refutation of Dingle. Dingle’s argument was obviously false. But not for the reason you exhibited ! You committed the same error !
You and Dingle mistook the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. I May 2017 I should have noticed that your false calculation induced you to write:
(3) rate A / rate B = 1/a ?
(4) rate B / rate A = 1/a ?
If that were true , that means that the rate of each clock would depend of it’s usage !
In “reductio ad absurdum “ that is an indirect demonstration of :
rate A = rate B
« Il ne saurait pas en être autrement «
Don’t mention the rates and your refutation will be valid !
Cordialement Chessfan ( talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please excuse me for "hot comments". Please note, that I believe, that editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) conducts subjective editing, which is not in accordance with WP:NPOW and is not solidly backed by reputable sources. I believe that you are not the supreme power here, so, could you please to let me know, how to bring this issue to the discussion? Can I appeal to a higher authority to resolve the issue? Best personal regards, Albert Gartinger ( talk) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:BOLDAVOID before reverting my edits. It states two things of note to us: the lead sentence shouldn’t be made unnatural by the bold and links shouldn’t be put in bold. IWI ( chat) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 205.239.98.30 ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 207.37.196.254 ( talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the article on Thermal conductivity says that the phase velocity of longitudinal waves is much greater than for transverse waves, such that their group speed is also larger. I thought that must be a typo, as the phase velocity doesn't determine the group speed in general. Thinking about it, I guess since both dispersions are gapless and heat is carried mostly by long wavelength phonons, this is true, but perhaps still not obvious. Apologies for the stray incorrect "correction" :) 130.183.93.92 ( talk) 09:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ DVdm:. The lead sentence of Galileo is currently/recently under discussion on talk:Galileo. Please join in on the discussion. Best, James343e ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I recently made an edit to the Lorentz transform page. I'm not sure what you expected me to provide a source for, because my change was pretty much just some algebra to make things clearer. I was going back to change the plus signs back to minus signs when I saw that you reverted the whole thing, because the plus sign is for when you're moving the future world line to the positive direction, which is just a sign convention that is used only in some contexts, and so it wasn't appropriate. The rest is just algebra to make everything clearer, and it's directly related to: /info/en/?search=Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction. When you draw a Minkowski diagram, you have an x and a ct axis, and the reason is so that the eigenvectors (which are the light-like vectors) are (1,1) and (1,-1), in other words, the line of light like event separations is at a 45 degree angle. For this reason (and so that the components have the same units), four vectors are typically written as (ct, x, y, z) for position, (E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z) or (E, cp_x, cp_y, cp_z) for four momentum, or A = (phi/c, a_x, a_y, a_z) for the electromagnetic four potential and so on, which are discussed to some extent on /info/en/?search=Four-vector. A source that supports what I'm saying is: http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_16.pdf
I am a physics doctoral student, and so I don't remember all of the places I saw this clearer way to write it, but what I do know is that the first time I learned special relativity, the professor used the notation that is currently on the Lorentz transformation page, and people constantly made mistakes with it or couldn't keep the two straight etc, whereas writing it the way I did makes it very easy to remember, and it matches /info/en/?search=Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction except there sinh and cosh are used, and explaining how to get to that is something I could do. My aim with making this edit was to save many students the trouble that I had and that I have seen many fellow students have, and now that I am TAing, my students are having this same very difficulty. For the nice way, you only need to remember a very simple matrix,
Obviously, most people won't actually know about matrices, so that's why I didn't write it like this, but the point is how simple and symmetric it is. Given this, is my edit not sensible? Mr. HelloBye ( talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm seriously thinking of downgrading Special relativity from B-class to C-class. I just finished giving it a thorough reading, and it strikes me as a junk pile of separate essays with no clear focus and which are not ordered in any rational fashion. A certain amount smells like original research. Not necessarily wrong, but either unsourced or idiosyncratically sourced. (Really now, a reference to the entire book The Road to Reality without a page number just does not qualify as a legitimate source. Likewise, a reference without page numbers to an old Dover reprint with a dated approach to the subject is just a pretend reference.)
Problem is, if I downgrade the article, I'd feel obligated to rewrite the article. Unlike Relativistic Doppler effect, which took only 10 days to get into a basically decent shape (although I keep finding small things that need tweaking), Special relativity would be a several months-long project, and I'm just not up to it.
Thoughts? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 09:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I used Graham Woan's "The Cambridge Handbook of Physics Formulas" (Cambridge University Press, y2000) for almost all of my data and calculations. John Dewey's "How We Think" is a very old book, though the author was the designer of the Dewey Decimal System used in libraries all over the world. I have several books by Albert Einstein; two are The Principle of Relativity" and "The Meaning of Relativity". Also, Max Planck's "A Survey of Physical theory"is invaluable in understanding light waves.
Other references can be provided if necessary. (I was raised in Richland, near Hanford where material for the atomic bomb was manufactured, have visited Nagasaki, and took a BA in Physics at Reed in Portland.) I hope it is possible to re-establish my talk page. SyntheticET ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello DVdm,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a typo in the Jack Handy quote you have displayed on your header, thought I'd let you know. Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 21:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page stating that i changed a page on Woolly Mammoth. I have NOT changes it. I believe my account may have been hacked, or logged into by someone else. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am149072 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi...I wanted to apologize if any inconvenience was given to you on my part.I guess I didn't gave a detailed explanation of why I edited some parts of salah article which made it looked like I wasn't being constructive.Next time I will be careful to provide detailed explainations with references as well+hyperthreaded links to support.I invite you to read those editions I do next time in detail and ask me questions if you have any confusions.I will be happy to answer.( Davidroth101 ( talk) 15:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
Since you contested move, but Superseded scientific theories was originally a redirect, so I just change this redirect to Superseded scientific theory in order to fix double redirect, cheers. Hhkohh ( talk) 11:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)